FIRST - SUCK IT ATL.

First. Elie is a fat ass.

Hmmm......encouraging the older staff to leave so you can keep younger staff?

When the layoffs come, it will fun to see the age comparables.

There may be some serious "efficient breach" calculus going on in re: Age Discrimination.

How many people believe that the early retirement program is being offer because of overwhelming staff desire to "improve staffing ratios?"

I is be offer you a remedial English book.

A&B =/= GM. Trimming costs instead of carrying dead weight union contracts is what capitalists do.

Elie = Fat Union Turd.

Program seems fairly reasonable to me. 23 weeks of salary!

Offering this program is nice and all, but it's absurd that A&B is trying to disguise it as a way to "help" older staff.

Just come clean, admit the truth.

Wow. I can't believe this memo, particularly the end. Lawyers sent this out??? Really?

as starr jones would say, "i'm a lawya"

that being said, i read this and found it a little confusing. imagine the 55 year old secretary reading this and trying to make sense of it.

Elie: Why no coverage of the recent staff lay-offs at K&L Gates?

23 weeks of salary - read the memo!
It's "23 weeks" worth spread out over a full year - and that's if you've been there for twenty years.

How will getting rid of secretaries and paralegals help? A 1st year costs as much as 7 paralegals

A&B coddles staff like no other place. There are tons of secretaries around here who do little work. This place is DisneyLand - I'm glad to see a little shake-out. Attorneys are not "freaking out." Ellie is fat. That is all.

he stabbed his father you idiot

Interesting how as ATL (this site) has gotten TTT so has the legal market in ATL (the city)... Now I'm not saying Elie caused both, but shouldn't the media be asking these questions?

Sending this memo to my firm - I want this deal.

MysTTTal

14 -- Implicit in your lack of empathy is that the targeted group (those over 55 with many years of service) overlaps nicely with "those who do little work."

#9, lawyers did not send this out. It is an internal HR memo sent by HR.

How is this news? MysTTTal is useless.

Does HR not have any adult supervision?

Seems like a pretty decent way to handle it in a very bad business environment. It's easy to pick on A&B, but as a former alum, I can tell you it's very staff friendly... It's the only place I heard of that gives its staff 401k matches but not associates...

I smell an age discrimiation lawsuit coming on...

I smell an age discrimiation lawsuit coming on...

It would be awesome if they hired tons of bangin hot assistants to replace the retirees. Giggity giggity.

I also think this is a pretty reasonable deal. Let's face it-- the older staff members that pull their weight will be fine when it comes time for layoffs. If anything, this deal gives the older but less efficient secretaries a little bit of a cushion when they might end up being fired flat out anyway.

"Let's face it-- the older staff members that pull their weight will be fine when it comes time for layoffs. If anything, this deal gives the older but less efficient secretaries a little bit of a cushion when they might end up being fired flat out anyway."

I was just thinking this policy focuses like a laser on those who are bad enough to know they're going to get laid off, and those who are good enough to take the money, then find work elsewhere. Leaving... the mediocre. Seems like a less than ideal strategy.

Hey 23, you ever been subjected to one of the staff indoctrination sessions with the consultant they fly in first class from LA? Dig a little deeper and that "staff friendliness" you talk about is a little more nuanced.

#23, Jones Day does the same. No associate 401k match. At all. I was floored. Also, associates subsidize staff health care costs. Family coverage for associates is about $775 per month. Of course, associates make signifcantly more than staff, but a 401k match (even if by a lesser amount) would seem reasonable.

28: That might be true, but finding work elsewhere might be easier said than done. And if the staffers have been with the firm for 10 or 20+ years and are doing well there, the incentive of 6 months work probably won't be enough to drive them away.

Each secretary and paralegal that is eligible for this program should walk into each of their bosses' offices and ask "Would you like me to take this package?" while surreptitiously recording the conversation. When each boss says "It's completely up to you, but I would take it if I were you," the secretary or paralegal should whip the recorder out of his/her pocket and say "I'm keeping my damn job until I die. You just try and fire me down the road and I'll sue your ass, you age discriminating piece of shit."

Now whether the recording is admissible in court, I'd be interested to hear what others think.

A&B: Not big fans of the ADEA.

30, almost no firm matches the 401(k) of associates. Matching is designed to improve the contribution ratios of employees who aren't considered "highly compensated." The law mandates matching if the contribution ratios of the low-paid employees are too low. Associates make too much money to be eligible for mandatory matching, and why would a firm voluntarily offer matching when they can get the publicity of a higher base salary / bonus.

Sounds like it's really easy for you to get floored.

I think the dates in the memo are off by a year.
"Last week . . . received a memo . . . . [quoting memo] Those interested . . . return it . . . no later than March 26, 2008." Don't they mean 2009?

This is typical of A&B. Instead of admitting an unpleasant truth like adults (in this case a need to downsize), cast the program as a gesture of magnanimity. As always, this tactic is transparent and self-defeating.

32 -- Love the idea. And who cares if it is admissible: if the firm knows you have that recording, they would never let a case against them even get filed, let alone all the way to trial.

This offer is extremely generous on the firm's part. They can lay off employees at will for no reason at all, at any time.

You probably shouldn't learn all your ideas about practicing law from watching Boston Legal.

This offer is extremely generous on the firm's part. They can lay off employees at will for no reason at all, at any time.

This offer is extremely generous on the firm's part. They can lay off employees at will for no reason at all, at any time.

37 - A&B requires employees' signature on a waiver of right to sue in favor of arbitration as a condition of employment. Not enforceable perhaps, but probably enough to intimidate the average staffer.

are the ny bar results out tomorrow? anyone know anything?

what does mystal have against A&B? -- these arrangements are pretty standard in many industries

How many people believe that the early retirement program is being offer because of overwhelming staff desire to "improve staffing ratios?"

Elie, it clearly does not say that.

Didn't we cover the 401k matching thing yesterday? No firms do this for associates. Matching is a benefit for lower salaried individuals who don't benefit as much from the tax deferment as associates do.

I hear A&B Atlanta really knows how to dress their office servants up right, with white gloves for tea service and all! Makes em look almost civilized, it does!

#34, this is #23, I forgot to mention that A+B does match 401k's for partners - but not for associates.

"is being offer" ??

I can only assume this is the tip of the iceberg. Can anyone credibly inform us if this is eventually going to lead to associate firings? I have heard rumors that the partners are sharpening their axes, but so far pretty quiet. They just elected new partners firm-wide last night, and are probably finalizing the 2009 budge this month. Info?

Ummm... a good many of you (including Elie, first and foremost) lack even a basic understanding of the ADEA. The ADEA does not prohibit businesses from offering early retirement as an incentive to get people out. If A&B gets to actually terminating staff, *then* the ADEA prohibits them from discriminating on the basis of age (but even then, pension eligibility is a legitimate substitute for age).

These sorts of early retirement programs are actually pretty common. I remember my (non-legal, government) employer making a similar offer in 2001, when the tech bust was at its worst (my employer was located in an area particularly hard hit by the tech bust). It basically accelerates retirement. The colleagues I knew who accepted early retirement were, by and large, those who planned to retire in the next two or so years anyway but who weren't strictly eligible for a retirement package at the time. It's a nice offer--as others have pointed out, A&B has no obligation--not even a moral obligation--to provide for employees who might be laid off anyway. (Even if these employees weren't the specific ones slated for layoffs, their early retirement lessens the need to lay off those employees who aren't eligible for the program. It's really win-win.)

I can only assume this is the tip of the iceberg. Can anyone credibly inform us if this is eventually going to lead to associate firings? I have heard rumors that the partners are sharpening their axes, but so far pretty quiet. They just elected new partners firm-wide last night, and are probably finalizing the 2009 budge this month. Info?

46 - not true. My firm (AmLaw 100) offers matching for associates on a sliding scale after the first year.

Exactly, 52. Many companies offer this as a way to accelrate retirement with the hope that it will reduce the number of people who will need to be laid off. The packages I've heard of in the past have had better health care benefits attached, which probably made those offers especially attractive to those eligible.

#53, you should have little to worry about if you work in a group outside of global finance.

This is 11:09am here. I personally think that #32 is a genius.

By the way, if I were in this position, I would take the money and run. You'd really have to be an idiot not to. It doesn't matter whether A&B is a pile of crap.

#54, you must name your firm or I call B.S.

52 and 55 are the same person. We see past the "complimenting yourself" technique. At least 57 did it right.

#32

This is just an offer. if they don't accept it, they might not be fired. It's a roll of the dice. They are offering people who might be close to retirement a way to take that plunge into golfing 3 times a week. If enough people go for it then it saves A&B from having to make tough decisions. If not enough people take it, then A&B will have to do some work in looking for who to fire, it won't be all old or all young. It will be some combo. There are plenty of worthless young people in the workforce and plenty of productive old people.

Ellie, I've been reading your posts for some time now and recommend one technique that I think would address some of the criticisms people have about your writing: show, don't tell. Ross Guberman--the GW law professor--teaches this technique in his Secrets of Great Briefwriters class that many Biglaw associates take. If John Grisham can do it, I'm confident that you can too. Also, read over what you write, just once, before you post. Keep up the good work.

Cooley matches.

52, I think the objection is not in the offering of the package, but in the seeming attempt to mischaracterize the rationale, and then insert a little fear-inducer at the end, almost as an afterthought.

56 - what have you heard about global finance?

While I think the offer is quite generous, it is a little bone-headed on A+B's part. Assuming that staff, like attorneys, are evaluated and shown the door if under-performing, it is *more likely* that senior staff are the most competent. While getting rid of highly paid staff is good in the financial short term, getting rid of competent staff is short-sighted.

Furthermore, phrasing the memo as a thinly-veiled threat is somewhat self-defeating. Such offers are better for morale than layoffs, but if layoffs are a certainty, then morale will take a hit anyway, and, as #28 said, will target the best (senior, competent) and worst (know they'll get fired) staff.

A better strategy would be to extend the offer (secretly) only to poor-performing staff. While seemingly perverse, it would be a small price to get rid of dead-weight staff. And who's going to advertise that they got an offer to leave because they do shit work?

Why so suspicious, 58? Ridiculous.

-54

Hey 51,

If the older employees have to choose between taking the early retirement or face the "terror of the alternative" - i.e. termination, then the buyout is discriminatory under the ADEA. Henn v. National Geographic Society, 819 F.2d 824, 828 (7th Cir. 1987).

I wonder what this will do A&B's precious Forbes 100 Best Places to Work rating?

I wonder what this will do to A&B's precious Forbes 100 Best Places to Work rating?

62, no they don't.

One really laughable part of this is the premise that there are lots of 55 year old staffers itching to retire who were "requesting" this. These days, with people having kids in their late thirties and even past 40, there are a lot of 55 year olds with kids in high school or college. Their 401K's are in the tank, they have no equity in their homes and that spring term tuition bill is due right around the time they have to accept this offer. Retirement is the last thing they are thinking about.

Also, the really incompetent staff are the ones most likely to be clueless (or desperate, because they know they are unemployable), so they won't take the deal and they will need to be laid off anyway. In the meantime, attorneys will lose a number of really good support staff who are scared into taking the deal because they are afraid of being laid off. Yuck.

Fire Elie

Hire #71

-----
We are pleased to introduce the Alston & Bird Staff Early Retirement Incentive Program. This Program is offered in response to requests from many of you and in our effort to continue to improve our staffing ratios in all offices.
----

I hate HR/attorney doublespeak. It's possible to tell the truth about bad news without sounding unnecessarily harsh. Unfortunately, these people found that a bit too complicated.

Alternative No. 1: The country is in the midst of a severe recession, with no end in sight in the next few years. The recession has affected nearly everyone, including Alston & Bird, and we need to cut jobs from the payroll sooner rather than later. This is not a pleasant decision, but in an effort to soften the blow, we have decided to offer "early retirement"/graduated severance pay to anyone who has worked here for at least 10 years and is at least 55. If you are eligible, you have until November 26 at 5:00pm to accept the offer. If not enough people take this offer, we will need to take additional steps to cut jobs from the payroll. We will do our best to treat people fairly and soften the blow, but we are a business and we must respond to current economic circumstances. Contact [redacted] if you want to discuss this any further.

Alternative No. 2: The economy has crashed, and we need to cut people. If we cut payouts to the partners, the good ones will bolt to another firm. If we cut associate bonuses, we'll be screwed for the next few years in recruiting. So we're going to cut staff. We're starting with the 55-year-olds who've been here for 10 years. Here's the severance package. Though the health benefits are basically an "at will" thing, and we'll probably pull those back once you're safely out of the building. Take it or leave it by 11/26 at 5pm. If enough people take it, we'll be fine. If not, additional 55-yr-olds will be fired on Thanksgiving without severance. So just ask yourselves, "am I feeling lucky?"

Instead, they basically chose to say:

Alston & Bird is a leading law firm in every field and strives for continued excellence. Our phone lines have been buzzing with inquiries from staff aged 55 and older about early retirement options. Since we love our staff so much and continue to strive for excellence, we've heard your questions and we've responded by unveiling a wonderful new early retirement program. Unfortunately, like those widgets they sell on TV at 2am, a deal like this is just too good to keep around forever, so we're only keeping it open until 11/26 at 5pm. If you call now, we'll give you a pen and the number of a temp agency. Operators are standing by! Thank you for allowing us to continue to serve you as we strive for excellence.

Ugh

"Monthly medical subsidy of $450/month until the month the retiree attains age 65. The firm reserves the right to amend and/or terminate the Retiree Medical Plan at any time.

Come again? Part of the incentive is a health care stipend that may or may not exist at the time you need health care?"

FYI - 65 is when you become eligible for Medicare. Almost no retirement plan pays for healthcare past age 65 because the government benefit kicks in.

Moron.

doesn't this fall under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act??

who does number two work for

73, I hope you're in management somewhere. I like the notion that it is possible to work for someone who tells it like it is, with humor, and without condescension

SkaddenDC has been doing this for two years.

Wow. That "tipster" makes Elie look like a Pulitzer Prize eligible author.

11--You're fired. You too, Millhouse.

67, there is nothing in here that says that the older employees are the ones that will get terminated. Presumably, it will be the poorly performing employees who will be terminated, if such layoffs actually happen. So this is a way for poorly performing employees who are 55+ to leave with severance instead of being fired with nothing. It is also an opportunity for those who were planning on retiring in the next couple of years to retire now, again with a package instead of nothing. It also, unfortunately, presents the risk that A+B will lose top-notch, highly experienced staff members who will take the package and then cross the street to become a highly valued member of K&S/wherever, all the while earning 23 extra weeks of compensation.

If A+B has more staff than it has staff work (due to economy or reduced needs b/c of increased technology, etc.), it may need to reduce its labor pool. In that case, if it has the choice of either (a) firing people or (b) offering an early retirement package, I think the early retirement package would be appreciated/preferred by many staff members.

-Not 51

32, I'm pretty sure Georgia is a single-party consent state for recordings. (Not positive, but pretty sure.) So might not be a bad idea. Could probably get around that arbitration clause if it came down to it.

#23 "as a former alum"

Isn't the only way to become "former" alum to die?

#23 (again): "It's the only place I heard of that gives its staff 401k matches but not associates"

You need to get out more. I know of dozens (yes, dozens) of large law firms that match for staff but not for attorneys (partners being a special case).

Check out employment law, ERISA, and permissible practices such as early retirement, offering a window, etc. A&B isn't doing anything wrong or anything discriminatory--it's been litigated before and A&B is following legal practice. I doubt older folks are being targeted--it's just that these are the rules for this type of early retirement package with a window. If staff layoffs come, I doubt it will be only those 55 and older. Also, the statement about maintaining a right to amend and terminate is standard employee benefits law practice. None of this is weird, and ATL should know better than to suggest as much.

I see the official A&B response *84* has been decided upon and posted. How could anyone possibly hold a different interpretation? The cheek! For shame! We are the good guys, the rational, the beneficent. Yeah, I think I've heard this before . . .

Before anyone cries to much for the 55+ year old staff, imagine the plight of the poor 54 year old staffer shut out of the early retirement program. It's better to be in than out ("that's what she said").

I don't get whether the salary continuation lasts each year until the participant turns 65 or if it's just a one year thing. Sounds like a one year thing. This is basically just severance then. People could take it, "retire" and then find work somewhere else.

Also, people should look at this as really nice of the firm because a lot of places would just fire staff. Alston is under no obligation offer early retirement to at-will employees. It can just can then on the spot with no severance. So it's nice of them to seek voluntaries first.

Maybe it's possible some employees at A+B wanted the firm to roll out this program? They were wanting to retire early but need retiree medical to help them bridge the gap until age 65. This program appears to be 100% voluntary. Why all the riff?

Some people seem to think A&B is trying to fool people into thinking it's doing this to be kind. I doubt anyone is fooled when any company pulls something like this. You know it's the first step towards layoffs. Sort of like how the car companies have been offering buyouts to various employees over the last few years.

88, see 63.

This is a very common, perfectly legal, and perfectly moral technique used time and time again in virtually every industry. It is not age discrimination to provide someone an incentive to voluntarily retire early. In fact, it is the preferred method over blindsiding a bunch of people with layoffs. You give the folks who are ambivalent about hanging around because they're eligible to retire an incentive to get moving. Then you don't have to lay so many individuals off who actually need and want to work, and you get rid of some deadwood in the process. Done and done.

A&B: where the kool-aid is mandatory and the buyout is optional.

91's right, but the offputting thing is the insulting spin put on all of it.

93, less offputting in light of what's happening at White & Case (100 staff laid off, many of whom might have preferred an early retirement package!).

To 85 from 84--

I'm an employee benefits attorney and unfortunately have seen (and helped draft) lots of these types of notices lately. I'm not defending A&B one way or the other, just pointing out that they aren't doing anything strange AT ALL from a legal standpoint, and that for a tabloid like ATL that purports to be written by very well-educated attorneys to suggest that standard reservation rights language in these types of employee communications is somehow mean spirited is rather irresponsible.

associate performance layoffs will be coming in january. bank on it. despite the insiders that constantly try to say everything is fine here, nothing to see, please move along, we know better. over half of their practices are tanking. KS and Kilpatrick are regularly kicking their butts in new client and current client development, and with this memo, associates clearly see the writing on the wall. how many associate layoffs were preceeded by staff layoffs? a lot.

#96: you are full of crap.

"Monthly medical subsidy of $450/month until the month the retiree attains age 65. The firm reserves the right to amend and/or terminate the Retiree Medical Plan at any time. "

The reservation of rights clause is merely standard language designed to prevent any claim by former employees that retiree health care benefits are vested.

96 - AB's fiscal year runs November to November, why wait until January? What makes you so certain associate layoffs are coming? Please share!

99 - With its obsessive commitment to maintaining the illusion of success and comity, I can't imagine A&B would do anything to jeopardize its 2009 Fortune "best places to work" ranking, which I believe comes out early in the calendar year. After that, all bets are off.

A&B - Top 100 Employer to Get Laid off from 2009

96 is right. Alston and Bird is floundering. Too many major partners have left--Joe Whitley, Lori Cohen, Pinney Allen, Nils Okeson, Aldo Lafiandra, and Rebecca Lamberth are just a few.

102 - Don't forget Steve Harris, the head of their Global Services group!

AB has no-offered and cold-offered Summers as well

Age discrimination lawsuits are not going to materialize. Don't think secretaries and paralegals are going to record and curse out their attorneys, because now in this market myriads are already gone before them into unemployment, in addition to unhappy employeds who think some other place will be better. HR consults with the firm's counsel to script these stupid announcements. Included somewhere in these groups of older people is a 39 year old about to turn 40. Sorry so cynical, but drawn from reality.

Wonder if this "exposure" will have any effect on A+B's carefully cultivated firm mythology and image projection?

102 - FWIW, Nils Okeson left A&B three years ago:

http://www.arbys.com/about/news.php?yr=2005&sid=1022

Don't see how you can argue that they're "floundering" today because of that departure.

Georgia is an "at will" state so employers are free to dismiss folks even if it is unfair. Life isn't fair and some of us want to work hard and continue their education. It is easy to be complacent in this world. Remember Darwin's theory: "survival of the fittest?." The days of over where seniority counts -- take the package and move on.

It is easy to be complacent in this world. Remember Darwin's theory "survival of the fittest?" The days are over where seniority counts -- take the package if you made list and move on.

108/109, your empathy is underwhelming. Perhaps you'll remember your words when you hit 55, are 10 years out from MediCare, 12 from Social Security, no longer pretty, cheap and marketable, and are declared professionally undesirable. (But I doubt it.)

110 This is 109, my apologies, I did not mean it to be cruel but it is true. This package gives you more than most employers will offer. Heck, they can't fire everyone! Hang in there!

The most troubling thing about this is not that it is a forced layoff but that it comes from a firm who lied to so many to get us to come and join its ranks. Alston & Bird prided itself as being a "different kind of big firm". We were sung lots of songs about how it was family friendly, how much the staff was loved and how very supportive the partners were of new associates (oh and how very diverse it was). As another poster commented- the Kool Aid is mandatory. We were all lead to believe (against our better judgment) that going to work for A&B would be different than going to work for another big firm. The truth is- the firm is just like all others. There is nothing wrong with the offer that was given--- it is just very much against the firm culture that Alston & Bird likes to present. I know the firm culture bit is a necessity when it comes to marketing but there were some very good people there (me included) who believed in the firm and fell in love with an abstract firm culture that did not exist and we got burned as a result.

#30; you're dead wrong! Associates do not subsidize staff benefits, Partners do.

#30; you're dead wrong! Associates do not subsidize staff benefits, Partners do, and they subsidize yours too!

#30; you're dead wrong! Associates do not subsidize staff benefits, Partners do, and they subsidize yours too!

There are reasons A&B remains on the Fortune List. While other firms and companies are laying off attorneys, staff and thousands of employees in this economic downside, A&B offers a small retirement package to those who might be interested -- "voluntary" early retirement. There's no disguise and no target of older workers. The firm is desparately trying to keep its employees without resorting to lowering their standards along side those other firms/companies. Many "older", committed , hard-working employees will have jobs tomorrow. Others, like the one who leaked the internal memo, are clueless why their job is/will be eliminated -- blaming the firm rather than themselves for poor work quality and standards when this economy can no longer afford to support them.

... or give them a free ride as they did for so many years!

116 - There's that righteous A&B apologist entry we've been expecting! Keep the faith, brother! Down with traitors! A&B GOOD! Transparency BAD! Pass the Kool-Aid!

I understand less than 10 staff members took the deal. Next, job elimination time. Never use the word layoff.

It is what it is -- times are tough and firms are forced to layoff folks. So unfortunate -- god bless them all.

#19-What firm would not want to SACK everyone over 50-years old.

You think a 50+Year old is gonna work as hard as a 1st year? Please.

Put everyone 50 and over out to Pasture, give them a nice Gold Watch and Severance. Tell them "Nice knowing you, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

Why is this such "controversy"---this happens everyday in corporate America.

So A+B drops off the list of "Best Places to Work in America"---worst that can happen.

Life goes on--A+B has been around over 100+years and will be so another 100+ years...you can MARK MY WORDS on that!